A new policy of censorship on TEDx, what happened to open conversations?

Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock's talks were both censored after radical atheist Jerry Coyne started a campaign to have these talks removed. Does TED really believe the public needs to be protected from new ideas? Are we not smart enough to make up our own minds?

BTW, TED's claim that the talks remain (in a secret and difficult to access corner of the web) online, so that doesn't "count" as censorship is completely disengenious. Why not have open debates bewteen Sheldrake and Coyne? Shouldn't the discussion be opened up rather than closed down?

Closing Statement from sandy stone

I think the strongest points have been made by the many, many internet bloggers who have spoken out against TED on the issue of censorship. I wish TED would have allowed me to continue posting the links, but they are shutting down this conversation early. Thankfully, the conversation continues elsewhere.

I have to say it surprising how little the TED faithful have to say in defense of TED. Even I don't think TED is all bad. I've enjoyed many of the videos posted over the years. I would suggest that anyone who likes a particular video should download it in case it does get censored at some point.

I'll give the final word to the many bloggers out there who refuse to be silenced:

Mar 15 2013:
As a long-term professional scientist, I agree with you, Sandy. Personally I do not agree with everything that Sheldrake and Hancock say, but to censor free speech like this is no different from having an "Index of Prohibited Books"', or like they censor the Dalai Lama in China (his book "Freedom in Exile" is prohibited there). If someone disagrees factually with what those speakers says, then the factual disagreements can be cited or discussed on any page which provides their talks.
The current editors of TED have no idea what it means to do real science, or to be open-minded, and I will not associate with that organization any further, until substantial changes are made to reverse this poor decision, and how it could be made in general. Dr. Horace R. Drew, Caltech Ph.D. 1976-81, MRC LMB 1982-87, CSIRO Australia 1987-2010. Either you believe in free speech, and free science, or you don't. If there is a factual disagreement, then you air and discuss those disagreements, you do not cover them up.

Mar 15 2013:
Please specify which factual errors were presented by Sheldrake, along with the peer-reviewed references backing up your case.

Looking at the majority of talks on TED, there is very little fact-checking going on. What we are seeing here is censorship based on a particular ideology... that of the radical atheist movement.

So long as TED is clear about what it's official ideology is, it can publish whatever fits. Just like any church or cult does. Controlling what the public gets to see without even being upfront in regards to who is controlling the policy is hardly in sync with TEDs stated policy of presenting new ideas and fostering open conversations.

I'd like to at least know who is on the science board of this non-profit organization.

Mar 15 2013:
Sandy, I don't know whether this is what you seek, but if you click the link "About Ted" above and look on the left, there is a link for TED Brain trust, which lists people's names and professional identification. You can tell who the scientists are.

There is nothing at that link called Science Board, so this may not be what you seek.

Mar 15 2013:
What a wonderful discussion this has all been. I've twice physically witnessed settings in which a group of distinguished scientists have become apoplectic over what they’ve heard: Astronomer/philosopher John Dobson challenged a room-full of astrophysicists to toss their assumptions about the Big Bang and consider his version of Steady State. I watched ears turn red under grey fringes, and hallway conversations were more than heated afterward. My second experience with high energy group scientific discomfort was at a luncheon a few years ago with Stephen Hawking in which he challenged another room-full of physicists to forget everything they thought they knew about the universe and look at it as if they were seeing the data as children… fresh and without any predisposition to belief or scientific orthodoxy. In neither case did those in attendance demand the speaker be silenced because they chose to speculate outside of measured phenomena (both spoke based on data they believed would be forthcoming and eventually measurable, not data in hand). In both cases attendees were provoked to discussion and self-examination of their learned biases, and in both cases their field still awaits stronger evidence for what they proposed.

In this TED discussion thread I see evidence of minds not unlike those I witnessed above, but I also see evidence of ayatollahs of science quite committed to not merely marginalizing those with whom they differ, but silencing them. I have followed Dr. Sheldrake’s work for some years, and while I am far from being a Sheldrake apostle, the data I have seen and my personal experience prevents me from dismissing his work. I would hope that TED and other media sources would choose to provide for the expression of contrary thought, and not be co-opted by one orthodoxy or another. It's a sad day that we see TED be bullied this way.

"But the gist of it, from my perspective, is that a couple of atheist/scientist bloggers (Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers) were instrumental in getting the Sheldrake and Hancock TEDx talks pulled out from the official TEDx channel. In fact, Jerry Coyne was so pleased that he even gloated on his blog. (Yay, a victory for “real science,” whatever that means.)

However, this is not the first time TED and TEDx pulled off a video of controversial talks. This also happened to Lynne McTaggart’s 2010 TEDx talk in Brussels and Nick Hanauer’s talk on “income inequality” which was just too political for TED. So TED’s censorship applies to fringe science views as well as too politically-charged views. So much for the slogan “ideas worth spreading”. TED’s slogan should now be “Status Quo Ideas Worth Spreading.” But I digress. "

Here is an excerpt from a site dedicated to re-shaping wiki to reflect the CSI dogma:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/wikapediatrician_susan_gerbic_discusses_her_guerrilla_skepticism_on_wikiped
"One of the projects the GSoW team is best known for is the We Got Your Wiki Back project. This is where we write (or rewrite) pages of our skeptical spokespeople. When they are in the media's eye, we know that their Wikipedia page views are going to spike. An example is Peter Gleick, whose page normally gets eighty views a day, hit over 3K views in the days after it was reported he infiltrated the Heartland Institute. A partial list of recent page make-overs by our team include Point of Inquiry podcast (before) & (after), Leo Igwe (before) & (after), Ken Feder (before) & (after), Ken Frazier (before) & (after) and Mary Roach (before) & (after). "

FYI, this kind of thing goes against the rules of wiki, but following the rules of good conduct is not something radical atheists bother with.

"When I first started to watch TED talks, I thought this interesting new medium might help to make challenging ideas more accessible. However, TED is anything but challenging; it is intellectual pablum that has done little more than create a bloated ideas industry. Dominated by a culture of feel-good techno-utopian do-good millionaires, most TED talks over-simplify complex global problems and offer quick technological fixes.

I am not the first person to raise these concerns, though; it has become almost cliché. TED talks are “intellectually pretentious and almost industrialized in their production” (Globe and Mail), “quick hits of epiphany from our pundit overlords,… a one-night stand with ideas” (Harvard Business Review) and “a massive, money-soaked orgy of self-congratulatory futurism” (Salon). The philosopher Daniel Dennett even went so far as to suggest that TED has become something of a religion, observing that it “already, largely wittingly I think, adopted a lot of the key design features of good religions.”

Comment deleted

the similarity has been pointed out that TED is an "up and coming Scientology" is the best overall commentary on TED that I have seen ( yes there are those u-tube example of direct experience of TED-fellowship indoctrination but they are full of profanity ) Also, there is a summer of 2012 New Yorker article ..."Is TED all Talk??" which covers all very nicely, with a New Yorker dash of humour too.

Bottom line here is if you don't like TED there are many many alternatives ....and you don't have to pay $$$ for them either. They too have discussion pages but they are monitored but not in a TED censorship way ..instead they have Identified -creditable- people ...and a feed back reply system.....something TED doesn't want to spend $$ on...and that is understandable given who they are and what they represent...A modern ego-mind trap.

And I close with a very old and well used Engineering expression that sums up TED quality very well...

"Nothing is ever a complete waste, it can always serve as a bad example" And to that purpose TED can (and will) for a long time to come, serve Very Well!!!

Mar 17 2013:
Why are you so surprised that people find censorship offensive, Krisztian?

TED pretends to be about spreading new ideas and having open conversations... but then the dirty truth about TED was revealed and people are angry about it. Not just angry, but sad. Reports surfacing on the internet are suggesting that many topics are off-limits as far as TED is concerned. GMOs is one. Alternative medicine is another taboo subject.

Mar 17 2013:
not offensive. disappointing. censorship is so much different, and you people should know it. censorship is not when you can not use someone else's media to promote your ideas. censorship is when you can use no media to promote your ideas, not even your own.

you probably have never seen censorship. i did. be happy with this state of affairs.

Mar 17 2013:
Krisztian, The reason there is less censorship where I live is because people have fought and died to protect freedom of speech. I served in my country's military because I believe freedom is something precious that has to be protected.

Freedoms can be easily eroded away, bit by bit. Maybe this is just a tiny issue to you, but if you look the other way, things will only get worse.

Mar 17 2013:
i suggest you follow up what happened in 1956, and then formulate an opinion who fought and who did not.

you fight not for freedom, but for your own agenda. freedom includes putting whatever i goddam please on my own website. you still refused to change your opening statement as i requested, and for a good reason: it is your work, and i have no say in that. just like you have no say what is going to the ted website, and what is not. crackpottery is not. and it is good. i mean, i like it. you don't have to.

Mar 17 2013:
Just for the record, I'm not an American, my country doesn't have the same history.

Canada came up with the idea of Peacekeeping. Not the missiles. People wearing bright blue berets who stand in between two sides of a conflict in the hopes that peace can be fostered with a little attention and care.

Mar 17 2013:
Maybe you should care. You seem to care about preserving the status of the TED organization. Sadly, you aren't really helping the cause by posting abusive comments. Why not take a more active tole in trying to fix TED? TED's reputation has been seriously damaged and if you value the organization then why not get involved and make changes?

Isn't that better than what you are doing now? Right now you aren't having any effect on making the world a better place. But you can change that. I'm serious.

Mar 17 2013:
i could not care less about ted. i disagree with a lot of decisions they make. i also don't like the amount of "happiness over truth" content, and occasional leftist political agenda (jennifer granholm). but that is fine. at the same time i find a lot of good stuff, like rosling, ramachandran, dennett, mitra.

but what bothers me great deal is people trying to impose rules on others. that sort of taliban mindset, declaring what is good what is bad, and fighting to the last drop of blood. mind your own business, and stop waging war on people using their own stuff, just because they use it differently than you see appropriate. bad news: nobody cares about your worldview. if you don't like ted, get the hell out of here.

Mar 17 2013:
i understand your post almost entirely. i just don't understand the "so" part of it. "so" seems to imply that you have deduced that from what i have said. but it does not follow in any way.

Mar 17 2013:
Reine, I know a lot of people have moved on, which is to be expected. Once my conversation times out, I'll be moving on as well. But at least I can provide links and information here so that others can see where everyone is going. I appreciate you taking the time to comment. Thanks!

"In an act of breathtaking stupidity, TED chose to quarantine both Rupert Sheldrake’s video and another one by Graham Hancock using some trumped up charges of scientific inaccuracies for both of them. No one was fooled and the resulting outrage has now topped 700 comments as I’m writing this. They are destroying their brand with this nonsense. The Daily Grail has done a fine job of examining the skeptical hatchet job, so I won’t be addressing that. Instead, I am going to look at what led them to this nuclear sized public relations disaster and how this is a litmus test of the psi wars in general. I believe that this issue gets to the heart of differences in how skeptics and the pro psi crowd think. We’ll start by looking at how the pro psi crowd thinks:

When TED put this up for discussion first, the reaction from the pro Sheldrake crowd was almost universally, “Please leave this alone. We can think for ourselves and make up our own minds.” "

Mar 17 2013:
Dear Sandy,
I just looked at your profile, and it appears that you have only been involved with TED for a couple weeks. Your very first comment on March 7, 2013 begins...."Censorship is just wrong......". ALL of your comments since then continue to criticize TED and people's participation with TED. I honestly don't give much attention or credit to someone who has this kind of agenda.

Mar 17 2013:
Like many people, I've watched TED talks on youtube without comment, taking for granted that they would be there for me to enjoy for some time. The Jill Bolte Taylor talk is one of my favorites, and it also covers the topic of consciousness. Since the censorship started, I've downloaded that talk. Who knows what will be removed next?

Mar 17 2013:
They ARE indeed there for you to enjoy whenever you want to Sandy. The Jill Bolte Taylor talk is one of my favorites as well. In fact, it was my first introduction to TED, and it is still available on TED. In the event that TED removes it, which I cannot imagine, it is available on Youtube, as most of the TED talks are.....I'm sure you know that.

Mar 17 2013:
The Sheldrake and Hancock talks were removed from youtube by TED. Are you sure the talks you like will survive the new vetting process? Many of the same people who called for Shedrakes talk to be removed (Jerry Coyne et al) are also making lists of other talks they think should be censored.

That's the problem with censorship, it is a poison that has a tendency to spread.

So download the Jill Bolte Taylor video while it's still there. Because someone might label it as "woo" and try to burn it at the stake.

Mar 17 2013:
Sandy,
You are trying to bring attention to YOUR agenda with threats and fear, which is really silly. If some talks are removed from TED or Youtube, life goes on my dear. Are you really so invested in this? Do you have a life outside criticizing TED and the TED community?

Mar 17 2013:
Who have I threatened? The well-being of an organization that doesn't look so good under the light of day?

Life does go on. TED has lost all credibility, but life goes on.

Looking at your 500+, I'd say you have a lot more time invested here than I do. I started a conversation. A week from now it will be gone, but the conversation will continue in other places. Places where people feel free to talk about whatever they choose. You are welcome to join those talks.

Maybe you should care. You seem to care about preserving the status of the TED organization. Sadly, you aren't really helping the cause by posting abusive comments. Why not take a more active tole in trying to fix TED? TED's reputation has been seriously damaged and if you value the organization then why not get involved and make changes?

Isn't that better than what you are doing now? Right now you aren't having any effect on making the world a better place. But you can change that. I'm serious.

Mar 17 2013:
This is a very interesting post Sandy, for a person who started participating on TED only two weeks ago, starting with criticizing TED and the TED community. Too bad you have this personal agenda. Do you honestly think YOUR criticism is "making the world a better place"?

Mar 17 2013:
People criticize TED all the time Sandy, and there are ways to criticize that really work, and may make an impact. TED has made LOTS of changes since I've been active for a few years, and they listen to complaints all the time. I do not perceive TED to be in a "mess". Perhaps you could explore your own agenda.

Mar 17 2013:
I have not "characterized" "many people" Sandy. Be clear with your communications...no need to try to sensationalize. I have clearly stated that you seem to have an agenda.

No Sandy, I am not a follower at all, which is why I am not following YOU! I have the ability to think and evaluate information for myself, as do many people on TED. Do you honestly think Sandy Stone, or whoever you are, can pop on TED and everyone is going to follow YOU? How is that working for ya?

Sandy, nobody is keeping you from joining in conversations on TED....many of which are interesting:>)

Mar 17 2013:
Dear Sandy,
You are absolutely right....you are "not the first person to raise these concerns"....nor will you be the last person to raise the very same concerns.

We KNOW that you can find any information you want on the internet to support any argument you may have. It is amazing how much time and energy you are spending with something you say is not valuable or beneficial...LOL

Mar 17 2013:
I think getting the message out is valuable. I've already convinced people I know not to become involved with TED. These are well-educated, highly successful individuals who will now put their time to better use. So my time was not wasted at all.

Instead of shooting the messenger, Colleen, why not try to work on improving TED's policies?

Mar 17 2013:
You have scolded several people on this comment thread Sandy for not staying on topic (which I think is why some folks deleted some of their own comments), so I will remind you that "The Church of Scientology" is not the topic. Please stay on topic.

"3) The board says that “Sheldrake claims to have ‘evidence’ of morphic resonance in crystal formation and rat behavior” when the studies have “never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal,” and so this is another factual error.

But there are two problems with this.

One, Sheldrake, in his own words, is suggesting a “hypothesis” for morphic resonance, not a theory that already has indisputable evidence to back it up.

Second, Sheldrake does cite replications of these experiments in his book The Presence of the Past, beginning on page 199. So what evidence does the board offer for discounting these replications? Simply saying they haven’t been published in orthodox journals doesn’t amount to evidence against it. Why don’t the scientists on this board step forward and debate Sheldrake on these issues or at least provide citations and evidence for their own assertions?

4) Finally, one TED editor said that Sheldrake made a factual error in saying governments ignore alternative medicine, citing the NIH investment in alternative medicine that currently amounts to about 1.425% of its budget.

Even with regard to the U.S. Sheldrake is largely right (98.575% right), but in other countries, such as Denmark, which invests no money in research in alternative medicine, he appears to be entirely right or again mostly right. The same appears true for the UK.

I think at the very last the TED board of scientists need to come forward and detail their own arguments. It seems to me that they really haven’t identified a single factual error in Sheldrake’s talk. Sheldrake made a lot of controversial suggestions, but no significant factual errors."

1) The board claims that that Sheldrake said that “scientists have ignored variations in the measurements of natural constants” and that this constitutes a factual error.

But this is not the case. Sheldrake, first of all, bases his talk on the “conflict in the heart science between science as a method of inquiry based on reason, evidence, hypothesis, and collective investigation, and science as a belief system or worldview.” In other words, he is saying that some scientists are dogmatic on this issue and some are not.

Further, at about 9:50 in his talk, he says, ““I want to focus on the constants of nature. Because these are again use [sic] assumed to be constant.”

He is saying, with the partially articulated word, that they are “usually” assumed to be constant, which is true. Most important, the scientists who hold the raw data for big G and refuse to publish it take this dogmatic stance, and these are the voices that really count since their refusal to publish the raw data is holding up further research.

In short, Sheldrake is really just asking for further inquiry and research here, which makes the response of his detractors rather puzzling from a scientific perspective.

2) The board says Sheldrake made an error in saying that scientists believe animals don’t have consciousness when in fact there is some consensus among scientists that animals have some form of consciousness.

But Sheldrake’s point here is that these scientists take the dogmatic stance that consciousness can be reduced to matter, so Sheldrake is really using the word “consciousness” in a different way. It is a semantic/scientific difference he is pointing out, not a factual error."

Mar 17 2013:
Thanks for weighing in. I know a lot of people have moved on, which is to be expected. Once my conversation times out, I'll be moving on as well. But at least I can provide links and information here so that others can see where everyone is going.

Mar 17 2013:
Thanks for weighing in. I know a lot of people have moved on, which is to be expected. Once my conversation times out, I'll be moving on as well. But at least I can provide links and information here so that others can see where everyone is going.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Terry
Many thanks for your support and kind words.

I have written a response to Ted’s accusations by their “Scientific Board” and sent it to TED asking them to post it under the Board’s statement. They have neither done so nor even acknowledged my email, sent yesterday, and re-sent today. So I plan to publish my letter to them online if they do not respond soon. I will also publish my response in blog form. You would be welcome to post these on your page.

"The Holy TED Talks Inquisition seems to have attributed to both men a range of positions that neither actually maintain - and then have gone on to use their own error to scratch the pair.

Truth is that their justifications are irrelevant. The bottom line is that Sheldrake and Hancock: "have crossed the line." And the gurus at TED are those who decide where that newly-discovered "line" is.

Which is a pity. Because neither Sheldrake nor Hancock should be lightly dismissed. They are both thinkers and great communicators. Ideal TED material, in other words.

TED's Science Board should understand that the history of science shows us that today's "pseudoscience" is tomorrow's TED Talk.

The posting by TED Curator, Anderson says that "our name and platform should not be associated with these talks." That hints of an emphasis on protecting the TED "brand" - at the cost of their aim of seeking to bring us "leading-edge" thinking.

If some presentations put a few scientific noses out of joint, so be it. Leading-edge material often does that. Ironically, the presentation by Hancock was about the "War on Consciousness." "

"TED jumped the shark a long time ago
it's primarily a shill for the elite agenda
and every now and then something interesting accidentally gets in
it's a real feather in one's cap to banned from TED
congratulations!"

"Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was run out of town, became severely depressed and was admitted into an insane asylum because of the harassment and ridicule of those in the medical establishment. His radical claim in which he "could offer no acceptable scientific explanation"? That doctors should wash their hands before surgery (to cut down infections).

His cherry-on-top was being beaten to death by guards of said asylum at the ripe old age of 47."

Nice to see TED is following in such a time-honored tradition as the one that killed Dr. Semmelweis...

"As you might know, Grahams video and Rupert Sheldrake's were both pulled the same day shortly after Graham announced the controversy. By then dozens of copies had been downloaded and reposted online, the only request Graham made to his Facebook followers.

All other actions such as this petition, calls to TED and the blog comments on TED's blog were initiated independently with no urging by the author.

As you can see by Graham's latest Facebook posts and Curator of TED Conferences Chris Anderson's replies--just more fuel has been added to the fire.

Anderson put his foot in his mouth by calling for level heads among Graham's fans while insulting the author further by asking him to rationalize a biased Wikipedia article on "Psuedoarchealogy" which has no relevance to the factual issues presented: the author was accused of making statements not in the video.

After the fact TED disingenuously tries to dismiss the issue as a minor TOS violation of their guidelines."

"As you might know, Grahams video and Rupert Sheldrake's were both pulled the same day shortly after Graham announced the controversy. By then dozens of copies had been downloaded and reposted online, the only request Graham made to his Facebook followers.

All other actions such as this petition, calls to TED and the blog comments on TED's blog were initiated independently with no urging by the author.

As you can see by Graham's latest Facebook posts and Curator of TED Conferences Chris Anderson's replies--just more fuel has been added to the fire.

Anderson put his foot in his mouth by calling for level heads among Graham's fans while insulting the author further by asking him to rationalize a biased Wikipedia article on "Psuedoarchealogy" which has no relevance to the factual issues presented: the author was accused of making statements not in the video.

After the fact TED disingenuously tries to dismiss the issue as a minor TOS violation of their guidelines."

Mar 17 2013:
For anyone maybe new to TED Conversations - people often delete their own comments for their own reasons. When you see "comment deleted," it is often because a person has decided not to continue in a conversation.

"My first comment on this article was “I had almost given up on TED because of its superficiality and linearity. This is TED as it should be always.” It seems I spoke too hastily and TED remains firmly rooted in its superficiality and linearity. Too bad."

Comment deleted

It doesn't seem as if you are willing to give people enough credit to make up their own minds. TED isn't giving people credit either. And it seems to be hurting their image.

After seeing the Joe Rogan video, a few people have let me know they will have nothing to do with TED. That's just people who I know personally. Well educated, successful people. People who can think for themselves.

I'm interested in knowing how censorship of Sheldrake and Handcock is going to stigmatize the TED brand. Is TED now about protecting the status quo? How does that affect the image it once had about promoting the "next new thing"?

Comment deleted

Mar 16 2013:
It is a very small amount, particularly when you look at the big business medicine has become.

There was a recent item in the news about a firm looking for investors for a promising treatment for depression that did not use drugs. It's a device that affects the brain using electrical impulses and early testing is extremely promising. But because it isn't a drug, there is no funding available for the kind of testing required for it to make it's way into common use by doctors. The device isn't going to make money for drug companies, so they won't fund it either.

This is just one case of an alternative treatment not getting the funding it deserves because it doesn't promote profits for drug companies.

Comment deleted

Mar 16 2013:
I don't have a religion and was never raised to follow any form of leadership without thinking critically for myself. I'd consider myself agnostic about the idea of god.

That isn't true for Jerry Coyne and his followers. He follows the doctrine of the atheist movement. It's his right to do so, but let's not pretend that isn't a fundamentalist dogma. It is known for extremely vocal followers who in many cases abuse websites like Wikipedia to insert false and misleading information to "spread the word" of that religion. Apparently they are now taking over TED.

TED can follow that dogma if it wants to. I would just like it to do so openly. TED shouldn't be so ashamed of it's own POV that it needs to hide anything, should it?

Following such a strict dogma makes it hard to be open to new ideas though. I think a change in TEDs slogan is overdue.